Apple slowly gaining patents to fight its war of attrition with Android

Apple was recently awarded a multitouch patent that the company filed just …

Apple was recently awarded a patent related to multitouch input processing, which the Internet immediately characterized as a "key multitouch patent" that Apple could use to target Android handset makers. While the patent does describe a useful—and perhaps even important—part of Apple's multitouch technology, it certainly isn't a "thermonuclear" option that Apple could use to wipe out its smartphone competition.

Not that easy

Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs wasn't shy about telling the competition that the company had done its homework and filed over 200 patents on the technology used to build the iPhone during his January 2007 keynote address. Apple's most recently awarded patent, US Patent 8,085,247 "Advanced frequency calibration," was filed on January 3, 2007, just days before Jobs unveiled the iPhone publicly. And in the coming months, it's likely that Apple may be awarded more of these 200+ patents.

The patent in question discusses a method to automatically tune and calibrate the oscillators used in a capacitive touch interface. Will this patent finally give Apple what it needs to shut down Android for good? Not likely, according to the legal experts we consulted.

"Apple files tons of patents all the time, but this one appears to be almost comically narrow," Nilay Patel, a former IP attorney that currently writes about technology and law for The Verge, told Ars. In other words, the patent very narrowly describes a particular method for tuning the oscillator using a binary search-like algorithm.

We also spoke with Patrick Igoe, a patent attorney with degrees in software engineering, about the patent. "A competitor could arguably design around this particular patent by using an oscillator tuning technique that avoided the use of a binary search algorithm," Igoe explained. "I would therefore personally not call it a 'key' patent."

But the patent itself isn't necessarily key, regardless of how broad or narrow it is. Until the patent is tested in a court of law, there's no telling how important it might be to Apple's goals, and no single patent is likely to be the "smoking gun" that wipes Android off the market.

"We're going to continue to see a high drop-out rate among patents asserted in litigation," intellectual property analyst Florian Müller told Ars. "Some aren't valid, and many of the valid ones aren't infringed. Those that are valid and infringed will be worked around almost 100 percent of the time."

Death by a thousand paper cuts?

Of course, Apple would maintain that it doesn't necessarily need or want a "smoking gun" to keep all competitors out of the market; it just wants to keep the competition from ripping off its designs.

"We think competition is good. It makes us all better. And we are ready to suit up and go against anyone," then-COO Tim Cook told analysts in 2009. "However, we will not stand for having our IP ripped off, and we'll use whatever weapons that we have at our disposal."

Before his death in October, Jobs also made it quite clear that he would be willing to use Apple's vast resources to "destroy Android, because it's a stolen product," as he told biographer Walter Issacson.

Apple has already filed numerous lawsuits, in the US and globally, targeting top three Android handset makers HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. And in them, Apple has used a variety of patents, from old operating system-related patents, to "slide to unlock" and even design patents, in its lawsuits. While it would have been faster and easier for Apple to have simply collected preliminary injunctions in important jurisdictions, the results have so far been mixed. Some injunctions were overturned on appeal, while others have had fairly easy workarounds.

Some experts think that Apple should give up and settle the patent disputes. Instead of trying to keep Android at bay, they believe Apple should use its patent portfolio to make license agreements with handset makers, generating perhaps as much as $10 per handset in royalties.

"A scorched-earth strategy is bad news because it doesn’t optimize the value of their patents—because people will get around them," Kevin Rivette, a managing partner at intellectual property consulting firm 3LP Advisors LLC, told Bloomberg. "It's like a dam. Using their patents to keep rivals out of the market is like putting rocks in a stream. The stream is going to find a way around. Wouldn't it be better to direct where the water goes?"

But Apple commands a large percentage of smartphone profits and holds roughly $60 billion in the bank; it doesn't need the money. The company can afford to keep filing lawsuits as the Patent Office grants its pending applications.

While other companies, such as Microsoft, have leveraged their portfolios to generate licensing income, Apple has largely used it patents in an attempt to maintain its competitive edge. Even if it doesn't have one multitouch smartphone patent to rule them all, it has hundreds of patents it can use to keep HTC, Samsung, and Motorola entrenched in legal disputes for the next few years. That itself might be enough for Apple to maintain its edge in the growing smartphone market.

Apple cant let the fair market decide on what products people want. I think apple needs to stop the bullshit Android exists and it is not going to die anytime soon. I mean come on apple stole the ideas of xerox to create their 1st gui os as many did... Apple needs to give the money back to the shareholders or pay the kids in china that make their widgets for pennies on the dollar a fair wage.

Apple buys up a bunch of patents that supposedly are to keep other companies from copying their products.

Google and Microsoft and to a degree RIM make their products the way that they want to, and it's debatable whether they "copy" Apple or whatever and make gobs of money.

Apple starts filing lawsuits that last decades over patents that really weren't theirs to begin with (which is why they had to buy them) all the while, Google, Microsoft and RIM make their money.

By the time the court cases are resolved, iOS, Android, Windows Phone, and Blackberry are historical references to products that are no longer in existence, and the consensus is that the patents and copyrights were never really enforceable anyway, and Apple spends all of that money (or Google, or Microsoft... just using Apple as the focus since that's what the article is about) to fight a battle they wouldn't win anyway.

I've always been of the belief that if you make the best product that you can, and sell it at a reasonable price, that people will buy it because it's worth it. There will always be imitators, but normally those imitators make an inferior product, or one that is different enough to not be confused with your product, and you will make your profits. That's the way it's always worked. It worked for Ford, GM, Dodge, etc (like cars aren't derivative products, right?), it worked for electronics companies from the 80's on. I don't mind Apple/Google/Microsoft getting paid for their products/services, but this crap where they try to force out competitors that make a similar products is just going to hurt them and everybody else in the long run.

Tell me that Android would even exist if Apple hadn't reinvented the smart phone. If it did, tell me that it would look anything like it does. Tell me that phones today would be focusing on touch-based interfaces, that swipe inputs to scroll would be common, or that pinch-to-zoom would exist. That any touch-based phone interface wouldn't still be clinging to old, sad desktop UI standards (just "click" on this tiny, tiny X to close this modal dialog!). They don't own the current smartphone market, but they sure as hell invented it.

Android snobs piss me off for not acknowledging this. The same way it pisses me off that Google doesn't really get acknowledgement from the same kind of people for reinventing how online maps programs should work. It's rare that I hear people even refer to Google Maps (most common is "Just go MapQuest it. Look it up on MapQuest). Before Google reinvented online maps sites (large part due to their Keyhole acquisition), do you remember how navigation worked for Mapquest, Yahoo Maps, etc? If you wanted to scroll east, you had to click a tiny, awkward "east" button on the edge of a map, which would then refresh the ENTIRE PAGE and scroll the map slightly to the right. There was no satellite view. Driving directions were inflexible. Etc. But people talk about "such and such feature in Bing is slightly incrementally better than Google Maps, so Google sucks." They INVENTED the online map, b*tches. Give them some credit.

I am not one of those grammar/punctuation/spelling asshats who expects better from Ars. I am genuinely curious. Did the person who was quoted use air quotes, or did that person emphasize the word "key?" Or was it quoted from a written statement. I only ask because I picture a guy being interviewed rolling his eyes as he emphasizes the word "

Edited for punctuation on a goddamned iPad, so I guess I am an asshat who is willing to put up with the ass-whooping of selecting a position in a sentence using the arrow-less keyboard of the iPad. Holy crap, I hate typing on this thing.

Tell me that Android would even exist if Apple hadn't reinvented the smart phone. If it did, tell me that it would look anything like it does. Tell me that phones today would be focusing on touch-based interfaces, that swipe inputs to scroll would be common, or that pinch-to-zoom would exist. That any touch-based phone interface wouldn't still be clinging to old, sad desktop UI standards (just "click" on this tiny, tiny X to close this modal dialog!). They don't own the current smartphone market, but they sure as hell invented it.

Android snobs piss me off for not acknowledging this. The same way it pisses me off that Google doesn't really get acknowledgement from the same kind of people for reinventing how online maps programs should work. It's rare that I hear people even refer to Google Maps (most common is "Just go MapQuest it. Look it up on MapQuest). Before Google reinvented online maps sites (large part due to their Keyhole acquisition), do you remember how navigation worked for Mapquest, Yahoo Maps, etc? If you wanted to scroll east, you had to click a tiny, awkward "east" button on the edge of a map, which would then refresh the ENTIRE PAGE and scroll the map slightly to the right. There was no satellite view. Driving directions were inflexible. Etc. But people talk about "such and such feature in Bing is slightly incrementally better than Google Maps, so Google sucks." They INVENTED the online map, b*tches. Give them some credit.

in comes the apple zealots listen the pc would of existed w/o apple the mp3 player as well and smart phones existed before apple you sir need to stop drinking the koolaid

from what i have read its more like stealing and then claiming its their own with no outside influence. then get into legal pissing matches for the same shit it did to other companies to try to keep apple on top

Tell me that Android would even exist if Apple hadn't reinvented the smart phone. If it did, tell me that it would look anything like it does. Tell me that phones today would be focusing on touch-based interfaces, that swipe inputs to scroll would be common, or that pinch-to-zoom would exist. That any touch-based phone interface wouldn't still be clinging to old, sad desktop UI standards (just "click" on this tiny, tiny X to close this modal dialog!). They don't own the current smartphone market, but they sure as hell invented it.

Android snobs piss me off for not acknowledging this. The same way it pisses me off that Google doesn't really get acknowledgement from the same kind of people for reinventing how online maps programs should work. It's rare that I hear people even refer to Google Maps (most common is "Just go MapQuest it. Look it up on MapQuest). Before Google reinvented online maps sites (large part due to their Keyhole acquisition), do you remember how navigation worked for Mapquest, Yahoo Maps, etc? If you wanted to scroll east, you had to click a tiny, awkward "east" button on the edge of a map, which would then refresh the ENTIRE PAGE and scroll the map slightly to the right. There was no satellite view. Driving directions were inflexible. Etc. But people talk about "such and such feature in Bing is slightly incrementally better than Google Maps, so Google sucks." They INVENTED the online map, b*tches. Give them some credit.

Pinch-to-zoom existed before Apple. The company is called Fingerworks, who were acquired by Apple. No doubt they too were building on previous work. Innovation/invention does not exist in a vacuum.Second Apple's iPhone has got the most old-school/basic UI of all smartphone platforms, this is fact. All icons on a grid, and pretty sure Nokia's in the 90's had that.Android took that and built on it, just like WIndows phone did (basically made the rounded squares around icons into giant squares.)I personally like Android because I dont give a toss who was first, and to me Google is iterating and improving on Android at a much faster pace than Apple, who I think are hamstrung/afraid to make too many radical changes and alienate their fanbase. OSX is same boat and looked basicaly the same since 2001 (even though it then was far ahead in terms of UI). Seriously look at Android 1.0 - 4, and then compare iOS 1 to now. Google just seem less afraid to try things/break things and change things up and more suited to a "geek" like me.

Another example is HTC Sense which offered ability to jump from lock screen staight into apps like camera, text messaging... this got folded back into Android with 4.0 (quiet rightly) as it was a good idea... Apple also wasnt too proud or "anti-immitation" to build similar functionality into iOS. They certainly werent shy of building a near replica of the Android Notification system (and building on it to some extent). Credit where its due but Apple (and fans) should stop acting like their sh*t dont stink.

I'm not sure why people think the iPhone was around for a period of time and Android stole everything from it. Sure, Android has iterated plenty since 2005, but the basic concepts of many of these patents were present back then.

According to Wikipedia...."The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007" and "Google purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc., on August 17, 2005. The unveiling of the Android distribution on November 5, 2007".

I'm not sure why people think the iPhone was around for a period of time and Android stole everything from it. Sure, Android has iterated plenty since 2005, but the basic concepts of many of these patents were present back then.

According to Wikipedia...."The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007" and "Google purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc., on August 17, 2005. The unveiling of the Android distribution on November 5, 2007".

Im an Android fan, but there are pics showing what Android was headed shortly prior to iPhone, and it didnt look much like it, though Im sure underlying frameworks were mostly in place. They did change the GUI however.

Tell me that Android would even exist if Apple hadn't reinvented the smart phone. If it did, tell me that it would look anything like it does. Tell me that phones today would be focusing on touch-based interfaces, that swipe inputs to scroll would be common, or that pinch-to-zoom would exist. That any touch-based phone interface wouldn't still be clinging to old, sad desktop UI standards (just "click" on this tiny, tiny X to close this modal dialog!). They don't own the current smartphone market, but they sure as hell invented it.

You've never used a Palm before. Have you? Many of the ideas in iPhone existed on Palm's phone or in third party apps, like alternative launchers.

Quote:

Android snobs piss me off for not acknowledging this. The same way it pisses me off that Google doesn't really get acknowledgement from the same kind of people for reinventing how online maps programs should work. It's rare that I hear people even refer to Google Maps (most common is "Just go MapQuest it. Look it up on MapQuest). Before Google reinvented online maps sites (large part due to their Keyhole acquisition), do you remember how navigation worked for Mapquest, Yahoo Maps, etc? If you wanted to scroll east, you had to click a tiny, awkward "east" button on the edge of a map, which would then refresh the ENTIRE PAGE and scroll the map slightly to the right. There was no satellite view. Driving directions were inflexible. Etc. But people talk about "such and such feature in Bing is slightly incrementally better than Google Maps, so Google sucks." They INVENTED the online map, b*tches. Give them some credit.

In your story, if Google was Apple and MapQuest was Google, Google would implement MapQuest features, call it their own, plus whatever new features they introduce, and then turn around and sue MapQuest, Yahoo Maps, etc. claiming they created online mapping. That's the difference between Apple and others (excluding Microsoft).

Speaking of ripped ideas, has Google sued Apple over their new notification area yet? How about over Siri (Android voice actions)?

Critics claim Google failed to build a large patent portfolio to protect Android. I really think Google is trying to live by its creed "do no evil" and was hoping to stay out of the patent wars, to compete in an environment where software and hardware makers worked together to make the best mobile platform. Sure, they would financially benefit from it, but so would many other companies.

But, things change. Android is very successful, maybe faster than Google anticipated. So, the jealous ones, Apple and MS, start taking shots. Now Google is forced to play the game. And look how they use their new patents compared to MS Apple. Do they use to squeeze money out of the competition via licensing fees? To prevent the competition from selling their products via court rulings? No. They use the patents in a defensive manner while MS Apple use it in an offensive manner.

Tell me that Android would even exist if Apple hadn't reinvented the smart phone. If it did, tell me that it would look anything like it does.

In making the iPhone, Apple stole shamelessly from Palm, Nokia, and others. Apple didn't invent (or reinvent) the smart phone or tablet. Apple copied and stole from designs that preceded theirs, just as they've always done, just as most technology companies typically do.

Job's claim that Android was a "stolen product" is laughable. By Job's own measure, iOS is just as stolen and OSX even more so. As recently as their latest iOS update, Apple completely ripped off the Android notification system. It's OK for Apple to 'borrow' from others, but not OK for others to 'borrow' from Apple?

Anyone believing Apple will file a 'smoking gun' patent to wipe Android off the map is truly smoking something else. Smartphones have been around for FAR too long for such fundamental ideas to remain unpatented. The holders of those fundamental patents will not be Apple, they'll be the initial players in the smartphone market. Palm, Nokia, Motorola (now Google) and the rest.

Apple fans should actually hope there's not a smoking gun, all encompassing smartphone patent out there. If there is, it's very unlikely Apple holds that patent, so it's far more likely to hurt Apple than help them.

Im an Android fan, but there are pics showing what Android was headed shortly prior to iPhone, and it didnt look much like it, though Im sure underlying frameworks were mostly in place. They did change the GUI however.

Was Android influenced by the works of others? Yes. Was iPhone was influenced by the works of others? Yes. So what. Which company behind these products is going around like union thugs trying to bust knee caps with patent crow bars?

"Will this patent finally give Apple what it needs to shut down Android for good?"

What does touchscreen hardware have to do with Android the operating system? This is Apple vs other phone manufacturers rather that Apple vs Android

I would disagree - Apple's complaint (which is legitimate, IMO) is that Google came late to the party, copied a bunch of features that Apple and MS (and others) developed and then Google tried to make it like they were white knights, saving the world from the Apple and MS's OS limitations. Google's suggestion that they do no evil certainly does not apply to how they treat their competitors. A more reasonable approach would have been to get a licensing program set up with Apple and MS (probably would have gotten a cheaper price if they did it up front rather then let the end users fight the battle individually) and then offer a product that was reasonably likely to be safe from the biggest IP holders. Google decided to go full speed ahead and let its user base suffer. Not exactly evil but definitely not the most noble approach either. Of course I don't have any real pity for Apple (or MS) as they have don't all kinds of business shenanigans over the years but in this case I can see Apple's point.

However, I think MS (which also has a better IP pool) has taken the better strategy. If people want something you are not providing, it is dumb to try and block their actions with IP. Far better to get some kind of royalty and profit from the efforts of your competitors. Of course, Apple is slightly more arrogant (and less concerned about antitrust issues) than MS and seems to believe that everyone really does want an Apple product if they could only not get confused by the similar products (Hey Apple - the reality is that some of us don't like the limitations you place on your products and really hate iTunes). So Apple is fighting away.

But long term this strategy will fail. Everyone else can afford to fight in the courts (particularily in countries outside the US where there is no discovery and litigation cheap and slow) and Apple has to fight a hundred different wars with constantly changing software and hardware. Apple would be far better off making money off those competing products and give its shareholders a dividend.

Apple fans should actually hope there's not a smoking gun, all encompassing smartphone patent out there. If there is, it's very unlikely Apple holds that patent, so it's far more likely to hurt Apple than help them.

I think you are right - I suspect Nokia has a lot of basic IP (but just has never figured out what it has and how it would apply as Nokia has too many patents to keep everything straight). Give me Nokia's IP porfolio and I think I could shut down all the smartphone manufactures (well, actually I would force them to pay a royalty - but you get the idea).

BS! Android is a complete rip off of ios from slide to unlock to how it fundamentally works. Eric Schmidt sit on the apple boad for gods sake, BEFORE android arrived. Apple DID NIT steal anything from xerox. Xerox and apple work outa del. apple could have a look at their technology if apple gave xerox stock. Apple did and they got their walk thru. Apple needs to defend itself so history won't be repeated. Meaning ms stealing the GUI. It's happened to apple once so I'd say it's a little more personal to them than most. Look at the smart cover rip off. Same colors same design. All these phone makers r doing is proving they can't be innovative. Come with something new so customers will switch. Don't offer what apple does only a different color. Give us something new and innovative then we will buy ur product. Be a copycat if u want but don't cry about it when people call it for what it is.

Steve Jobs apparently was one of the listed inventors on over 200 patents. So there is nothing particularly new or slow about Apple acquiring patents. The real issue is between patents that are essential to any kind of touch user interface and those that are specific to Apple's particular design. Nobody will be able to implement a touch UI without infringing patents in the first class. Apple probably does hold some patents in this class. But others may have some that Apple needs too. This kind of patent is the traditional use. It has nothing to do with copying. Ten years after the fact the patent can be asserted against an implementation created without any knowledge of the patent's existence.

The other kind of patent protects a design that an infringer probably would not have arrived at except by copying. Normally, this kind of intellectual property is protected by copyrights. Before this instance I have never heard of patents being used this way. It would seem like particular multi touch gestures could fall in this category.

I suspect that the likely long term result of the conflict between Apple, Android, and anyone else will mainly focus on which class particular patents fall in. Apple will likely be able to claim exclusive use of some design elements that they have managed to protect with patents. They will also get some value from their core technology patents. But that value will come in the form of royalties negotiated in the way that has been traditional in the computer industry for both software and hardware patents. Any exclusive design elements that Apple is able to protect from Android will also almost certainly apply to Windows reimagined and any other potential competitor that might come along.

Apple fans should actually hope there's not a smoking gun, all encompassing smartphone patent out there. If there is, it's very unlikely Apple holds that patent, so it's far more likely to hurt Apple than help them.

I think you are right - I suspect Nokia has a lot of basic IP (but just has never figured out what it has and how it would apply as Nokia has too many patents to keep everything straight). Give me Nokia's IP porfolio and I think I could shut down all the smartphone manufactures (well, actually I would force them to pay a royalty - but you get the idea).

It could just as easily a patent owned by Palm (HP), NEC, or perhaps even Motorola.

All the more resin for Apple to gear up. It's time for the duplicitous industry to acknowledge the simple fact of iPhone being the game changer that let them earn billions and billions on a yearly basis.

You need to go rip off a dictionary (spelling) and The Writer's Reference (grammar).

The point is that everyone gets ideas from everywhere. Just because you create something like another does not mean that you are ripping anyone off. That's how technology works. That's how technology's progressed. Technology does not usually catch if it is completely alien to its users.

You can't "steal" an idea. Suggesting it's an act of theft is as ridiculous as suggesting every time you breathe you're stealing my air.

Every idea you have has influences, whether you recognize them or not.

"BS! Android is a complete rip off of ios from slide to unlock to how it fundamentally works."

What idiotic nonsense. Both Android and Apple's operating system are built on a foundation that has been created by the entire computer industry. Apple certainly had nothing to do with the creation of managed code or Java's implementation of it. Apple has certainly exploited open source software for major pieces of its operating system. Apple certainly does own some valuable intellectual property related to touch user interfaces and deserves to realize some value from that property. But, unlike the drug industry, the computer industry does not work by companies using patents to exclude competition. Apple could not market a product without depending on a wide range of technology that is patented by a variety of companyies. They will not be able to sustain the concept that they can claim exclusive right to market any user interface based on touch.

"Apple files tons of patents all the time, but this one appears to be almost comically narrow," Nilay Patel, a former IP attorney that currently writes about technology and law for The Verge, told Ars. In other words, the patent very narrowly describes a particular method for tuning the oscillator using a binary search-like algorithm.

Funny how in today's world, patenting an actual invention is considered "comical".